Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Hackney (202313598)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313598

London Borough of Hackney

11 June 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial noise from the property above.
    2. The resident’s reports of groups of schoolchildren congregating outside his property, causing noise nuisance.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 1–bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has reported multiple health conditions, including severe anxiety, depression, paranoia, and autism. The resident receives advocacy support from a disability charity and for the purposes of this report they will be referred to as the resident’s representative.
  2. On 2 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that it was the second time he was making complaints about his neighbours in the property above. He said the noise pollution had been causing him major disturbance and mental distress for over 3 years. He said the landlord had not taken any action and he had been completely ignored. He requested that his complaint was escalated and for the landlord to take action against his neighbours. He said there was repeated noise pollution after 11pm and during the day, which was waking him up. The resident said he was a disabled person who suffered with mental health and physical pains and it was unacceptable for him to live in major distress. The resident provided a record of all the dates and times the noise pollution had affected him over the years.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 July 2022 and stated that it had visited the resident on 22 June 2022 to discuss his concerns but he was not home. It said a calling card was left but the resident had not been in contact. It said it had written to his neighbour and warned them to reduce the noise after 11pm and before 7am. It said it had not received any further reports and would close the case in 7 days if there was no response from him. On 7 July 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the case was closed as it had written to the neighbour and it had suggested mediation which the resident had declined.
  4. The resident reported the issues again in August, September, and October 2022. The landlord’s case notes on 17 October 2022 show it also investigated noise reported from outside the resident’s property in the afternoons. It stated that noise was allowed at the times reported and people walk through the alleyway beside the property at all times. It said the estate was densely populated and it had spoken with the resident’s representative to try and manage the resident’s expectations. In relation to the neighbour, it confirmed that all bedrooms were carpeted, rugs were placed in the living room, and lino was in the kitchen and bathroom.
  5. On 13 January 2023 the resident stated he was making further complaints regarding the severe noise pollution and that it was causing him severe mental psychological distress. He said he had complained many times, receiving no help from the landlord, and his disability was disregarded. He said he could not bare it any longer and the landlord needed to take further action. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 17 January 2023.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 March 2023. It stated that it had asked the resident to download the noise app and it had listened to a sample of the audio recordings which were submitted. It stated that the resident’s recordings were mostly consistent with general household noise and not considered a deliberate act. It said it was unable to take tenancy or lease enforcement action where it did not believe a breach had occurred. It said it had asked the housing officer to formally write to the neighbour to request that greater care was taken to minimise unnecessary noise. The landlord said it would monitor the antisocial behaviour (ASB) case for a further 2 weeks. It suggested mediation and said if following mediation, the noise continued, it would escalate the case to the specialist ASB team. The landlord confirmed this was due to the impact the noise was having on the resident.
  7. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response on 11 March 2023. He said he could not undertake mediation due to his anxiety and autism and that the landlord had not made any reasonable adjustments for him under the Equality Act 2010. The resident attached a letter from his GP which stated that he had high levels of distress about his housing and outlined how it impacted his Asperger’s syndrome. The resident said the noise was ongoing and the neighbour was now throwing cigarette butts outside his flat. He said schoolchildren gathered outside his door and next to the alleyway which was very noisy and dirty. The resident said he was previously attacked in the alleyway.
  8. The landlord responded on 21 March 2023, it clarified what mediation would involve and provided further information about domestic noise. It said it would ask his housing officer to write to his neighbour regarding throwing cigarette butts in front of his property. It also provided contact information for the teams who could assist with ASB and cleaning issues related to the alleyway.
  9. On 11 April 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the case had been escalated to the specialist ASB team for further investigation and it provided the name of the officer assigned to the case. The resident and his representative continued to report issues with the neighbour throughout 2023.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 January 2024. It stated the following:
    1. It provided an overview of the correspondence since the formal complaint logged in January 2023. It said following May 2023, there were no further meaningful records on the complaint case until it was approached by the Ombudsman on 10 January 2024.
    2. It acknowledged that the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction on 11 March 2023 should have resulted in an escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process. It apologised for not doing so. It confirmed that action was still taken and outlined what it had done in the past year.
    3. The issue had been ongoing for a number of years however, it was the landlord’s view that it was normal living noise with no intent and no activity to justify taking formal action.
    4. It was clear the resident’s medical issues were impacted by the noise, it had been mindful of this and engaged with his representative to attempt to manage the situation.
    5. While it was clear there were failings in the handling of the complaint, it could not determine that there were any failings in the way the ASB case was handled. It said it would conduct a review with the resident to establish what further support and assistance could be provided and it would be concluded by the end of February 2024, with a plan of action.
    6. It offered a total of £1,430 compensation. £300 to reflect the level of fault, £150 in consideration of the vulnerability issues raised, and £980 for the delays at stage 1 and 2 of the complaint.
  11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to the Ombudsman. He said he wanted an investigation to look at the landlord’s mishandling of his complaint and the ongoing discrimination he had faced. He said the issue had not been resolved and the landlord had not attempted to help him. He said he would like insulation to reduce the noise or the landlord to take legal action against his neighbours and evict them. He said alternatively, he would like to be rehoused. He also wanted to know if he was owed any further compensation.

Post internal complaints procedure

  1. The ASB team met with the resident and his representative on 31 May 2024 to review all the actions taken to date. It was concluded that the noise was day to day movements consistent of a family with 2 small children. It said it had spoken with the family who had made every effort to minimise noise and the structure and fabric of the building was such that noise transference was commonplace. The resident was informed that the neighbour could also hear his phone conversations and household noise. The ASB team acknowledged the resident was sensitive to noise due to his medical condition and advised that a mutual exchange was the only option available to him to pursue alternative accommodation. It said the resident was asked if he had any further support needs but he did not respond.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The evidence shows there has been a history of noise complaints from the resident about his neighbour since 2019. This investigation focusses on events from 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint in January 2023 up to the landlord’s stage 2 response in January 2024. The Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable period in accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme to evaluate the landlord’s handling of the issues raised. Separate issues, and events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure have not been investigated and are referenced for contextual purposes only.
  2. The resident has stated that the landlord discriminated against him. It is acknowledged that this is a serious allegation. Though the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s handling of his vulnerabilities and its response to his concerns. The resident may wish to seek independent advice if he wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial noise from the flat above

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this is a difficult situation for the resident and recognises that the noise reported to the landlord had caused him distress. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. Our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that noise can be an example of ASB. It said it has a noise service to investigate complaints about noise and the ASB team will, if appropriate, investigate reports of noise nuisance if the threshold is met. It outlines actions it will take to deal with all reports of antisocial behaviour. This includes putting an officer in charge of each case, agreeing an action plan with the resident, assessing each report, and providing extra support if needed. It defines safeguarding and states that it will work with other organisations to protect children and adults who may be vulnerable.
  3. Following the resident’s reports made on 2 June 2022, the landlord’s response was to visit the resident at his home and leave a calling card asking him to get back in touch. It is unclear why the landlord did not respond to the resident’s email; however, it sent a follow up letter on 1 July 2022. In the letter it informed the resident that it had sent a warning letter to the neighbour and if there was no further contact from the resident within 7 days, it would close the case. The landlord’s response was reasonable, and it was positive that it initiated actions to address the noise from the neighbour, even without robust evidence.
  4. While the case was closed on 7 July 2022, the resident continued to report issues with noise from his neighbour in August and September 2022. The landlord’s internal communication at the time showed that it had investigated the resident’s reports and the neighbour’s property. On 26 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to state that he was still awaiting a response about his complaint. The actions taken by the landlord such as investigating the flooring in the neighbours flat, considering the noise in the alleyway, and liaising with the resident’s representative were all appropriate. However, the landlord should have responded to the resident, confirmed whether the case had been re-opened, and kept him updated. This would have helped the resident feel he had been listened to and that reasonable action was being taken.
  5. The resident was asked to download the noise app on 19 January 2023. Given the length of time the resident had been raising concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have actioned this sooner. However, the landlord concluded from the recordings that the noise was consistent with general household noise and was not a deliberate act. The landlord had taken steps to investigate such as listening to the recordings, considering the reports made, contacting the neighbour, and assessing the neighbours property, but it had been unable to substantiate the reports. Therefore, while it would have been disappointing for the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to outline that it could not take any tenancy or enforcement action with the neighbour.
  6. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the resident had previously refused mediation however it felt a mediator could help. The case was referred to the specialist ASB team in April 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 May 2023 and stated that the ASB officer had called him and told him to go to mediation. He asked why he was still being pressured to go to mediation. The Ombudsman agrees that mediation can be a useful tool in trying to help neighbours reach an understanding and that the tools available to the landlord to address the issue were limited. However, the resident made it clear on many occasions that he did not wish to undertake mediation due to his anxiety and autism, and the landlord should have respected that.
  7. The resident repeatedly said the noise was causing him severe mental psychological distress and that his disability had been disregarded. While the landlord’s ASB policy does not explicitly state that a risk assessment should be conducted, given the concerns raised by the resident, it would have been reasonable for it to have done so. Risk assessments can be a fundamental tool that allow landlords to understand the risk of harm posed to an individual reporting ASB and respond appropriately. While the landlord did take steps to address the issue, a risk assessment would have ensured it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and any additional support needs required. It is a failing that this was not done prior to the stage 2 response.
  8. On 6 June 2023 the ASB officer informed the resident’s representative that no action could be taken following the resident’s reports. The representative responded to say they had discussed the options available to the resident and he would like to be moved or for the neighbour to be moved. They also asked if they had reached the end of the complaints process. The ASB officer stated that rehousing was not something it could consider but there was something else which it was following up on which may help reduce the noise. The response was not appropriate as it did not explain why it could not consider rehousing or signpost the resident to someone who could. It also did not outline what it was following up on to help reduce the noise. The ASB officer did not email again until 4 July 2023 to state that it had visited the neighbours flat to investigate the flooring and it was adequate. It said it was unable to take further action but it would encourage the resident to reconsider mediation.
  9. The ASB officer’s response suggests a lack of internal communication as the neighbour’s flooring had already been investigated and the resident had made it clear he did not wish to undertake mediation. While the Ombudsman can appreciate the officer’s efforts to find a solution, the resident had been reporting the issue for years, and the landlord should have confirmed when all appropriate action had been taken to investigate the noise. By doing so, this may have helped manage the resident’s expectations or allowed the resident to approach the Ombudsman sooner.
  10. The resident continued to report the issues to the landlord throughout 2023. While the landlord has provided evidence of it responding to some of the resident’s reports, it had not responded to all of them, which was not appropriate. In its stage 2 response, the landlord outlined the additional actions it had taken since July 2023. This included speaking to the neighbour and resident again and fitting sound reduction pads on the neighbours washing machine. Due to a lack of clarity on whether the case remained open and no formal action plan, it is difficult to determine whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable, in all the circumstances.
  11. The resident has stated to the Ombudsman that he would like insulation in the property to reduce the noise. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this request being put to the landlord by the resident. However, the landlord acknowledged that poor insulation was an issue and it is for the landlord to decide if this would be a feasible option to explore. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to confirm to the resident if this has already been considered.
  12. Overall, there were delays at times in responding to the resident and in outlining what action had been taken. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident in chasing a response and repeatedly raising his concerns. The landlord failed to fully assess the risk in this case and agree a clear plan of action which led to further delays. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided further information regarding the resident’s request for rehousing. The landlord has however evidenced that it carried out several reasonable and proportionate actions to address the noise reported by the resident. It has also attempted to put things right by awarding £300 to reflect the level of fault and £150 in consideration of the vulnerability issues raised.
  13. The total award of £450 is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration if not for the landlord’s steps to put things right by accepting its failing and offering reasonable compensation. The Ombudsman has therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial noise from the property above.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of groups of schoolchildren congregating outside his property, causing noise nuisance

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that nuisance activities could be a type of ASB. It provides examples of what this could be, one of which is hanging around in shared or public areas. It states that the activities themselves may not be antisocial but are inconsiderate and a nuisance in some circumstances.
  2. In his email dated 11 March 2023, the resident said he had made a new complaint of schoolchildren gathering outside his front door after school, he said his flat is located beside an alleyway and it becomes very noisy. He said the alleyway was very dirty, people urinated in it, and it was very unhygienic. The resident said it was the same alleyway he was attacked in in 2019 and people hanging around the alleyway caused him anxiety. He requested the landlord completely close it off. The landlord responded on 21 March 2023 and said as regular access was required it would be unable to close the alleyway. It advised the resident where to report the cleaning issues and where to report the ASB issues. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was reasonable.
  3. The resident was contacted on 3 April 2023 by the community safety team. It said the issue of youths had been raised with the neighbourhood police team who would contact the resident for further information. It said it was working with the police to identify the perpetrators and take necessary action. The team said it had also liaised with the police school’s inspector and provided their contact details to assist in identifying the school the children were attending. It confirmed it had contacted the housing team regarding cleaning the alleyway and to request CCTV be installed to improve safety in the area. It also provided information and the details for victim support in relation to the resident’s anxiety. The resident was advised to contact the team if he wished to discuss the matters further.
  4. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s response and actions were appropriate and in line with its policy. Therefore, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of groups of schoolchildren congregating outside his property, causing noise nuisance.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. It aims to give a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If the landlord requires more time to provide the response, it states that it will inform the complainant as soon as it can.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy provides guidance for financial redress related to avoidable distress, harm, risk, or time and trouble. It states that for moderate distress a remedy payment should be between £100 and £300, and up to £1,000 if the distress was severe or prolonged. It outlines that for time and trouble related to the effort a complainant has had to make to achieve an outcome to their complaint, to award between £100 and £300. It states that a disability or health condition may make a complainant less able to cope with the impact of the fault identified and the remedy should be considered and potentially reflect that.
  3. It is not disputed that there were significant delays in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stage 1 and 2. It took 38 working days at stage 1 and 215 working days at stage 2, which was not acceptable. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code became statutory from 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords are obliged by law to follow its requirements. Therefore, no order in relation to this will be made. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and to provide a better service to residents.
  4. It should also be noted that in an email dated 2 June 2022, the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage 2 and the landlord did not acknowledge this or confirm whether a stage 2 response could be provided. Despite action being taken, the delays in providing complaint responses in this case caused the resident distress and inconvenience in repeatedly raising the issue and chasing a response. As already mentioned, it therefore failed to manage his expectations and prevented him from accessing the Ombudsman sooner. This is a significant failing which left the complaint unresolved for many years.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been failings in the way the complaint had been handled and apologised. It said the failures would be brought to the attention of its assistant director. The landlord has since informed the Ombudsman that it had arranged for safeguarding training to be provided to all ASB officers. It said it had upgraded its ASB dashboard to notify senior managers if cases had not been updated within 14 days. It stated that it was also revising its ASB policy and procedures which will integrate suggestions outlined in the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports. It anticipated the document will be ready for publication by 1 August 2024.
  6. The overall offer of compensation amounted to £1,430, £300 was to reflect the level of fault, £150 was in consideration of the vulnerability issues raised, and £980 was for the delays at stage 1 and 2 of the complaint. The Ombudsman finds that the compensation was proportionate to the failings identified in this case and in line with the landlord’s policy. As such, an order for further compensation will not be made.
  7. This assessment considers whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman recognises that the complaint handling caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration, however, the remedy offered by the landlord was reasonable. It acknowledged its mistakes, apologised, offered compensation, and learnt from its failures. As such, the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and level of compensation offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that groups of schoolchildren were congregating outside his property, creating noise nuisance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the following complaints satisfactorily:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial noise from the property above.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling and level of compensation offered.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should confirm its position on sound proofing in the property to the resident.
  2. The landlord should write to the resident outlining all his housing options and any assistance it can provide him with this.
  3. It is noted that the resident did not respond regarding any support needs required. The landlord should complete a risk assessment using the information provided to it so far to consider whether any further support, or referrals for support may be required. If any are identified, it should then attempt to liaise with the resident and his representative to discuss these.
  4. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the £1,430 in compensation offered in its stage 2 response.